DOC's Proof of Christianity Through Irrelavent Fact Attrition

[wahrheit]

No, you said "Maybe that's one of the reasons God gave him such incredible talent."

Not:

"Maybe God gave him such incredible talent."

How stupid do you think we are - or alternatively - how grammatically incompetent are you?

Following Hokulele's link above I noticed the same, but I doubt it's grammatical incompetence on his part since even I figured it out immediately.

And I don't think that DOC thinks that we are stupid. I think that he merely hopes that the occasional lurker is as gullible as a ten year old in Sunday School. There would be some (fake) discussion encouraged (as in putting a question mark at the end of wild assertions), but only to a certain point. At the end, the great teacher's premise would have to remain true, since it's the alleged word of gawd.

 

[DOC]

False statement #4

DOC can't define life.

Sure I can:

From Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Home > Library > Reference > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

life

State characterized by the ability to metabolize nutrients (process materials for energy and tissue building), grow, reproduce, and respond and adapt to environmental stimuli. Fossil evidence suggests that earth's first living organisms, bacteria and cyanobacteria, arose about 3.5 billion years ago. All known life-forms possess either DNA or RNA. Viruses, which possess DNA and RNA, cannot reproduce without a host cell and do not metabolize nutrients, and it is uncertain whether they should be classified as living or nonliving. Scientists disagree on the likelihood of extraterrestrial life.

http://www.answers.com/topic/life-zool-in-encyclopedia

 

[joobz]

DOC can't define life.

Sure I can:

From Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Home > Library > Reference > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

life

State characterized by the ability to metabolize nutrients (process materials for energy and tissue building), grow, reproduce, and respond and adapt to environmental stimuli. Fossil evidence suggests that earth's first living organisms, bacteria and cyanobacteria, arose about 3.5 billion years ago. All known life-forms possess either DNA or RNA. Viruses, which possess DNA and RNA, cannot reproduce without a host cell and do not metabolize nutrients, and it is uncertain whether they should be classified as living or nonliving. Scientists disagree on the likelihood of extraterrestrial life.

http://www.answers.com/topic/life-zool-in-encyclopedia

That isn't YOU defining life. That is YOU posting someone else's definition of life.
If you were a student, you would clearly fail this assignment.

But it's fun that you say this is the definition of life because as such, god isn't alive.

 

[Hokulele]

That isn't YOU defining life. That is YOU posting someone else's definition of life.
If you were a student, you would clearly fail this assignment.

But it's fun that you say this is the definition of life because as such, god isn't alive.

I wonder if DOC realizes the significance of "adapt to environmental stimuli" in his definition...

 

[wahrheit]

I wonder if DOC realizes the significance of "adapt to environmental stimuli" in his definition...

I wonder if you really wonder.

 

[articulett]

I wonder if DOC wonders.

 

[joobz]

I wonder if you wonder if DOC wonders wonders who.

 

[DOC]

DOC has started a number of threads which all raise a seemingly inconsequential point. (Was peter in rome, was Lief Erikkson christian, Communism better as christian,...). Whenever asked, "So what?", the question goes unanswered.

I wish to start this thread by presenting my believe as to what DOC's goal/view is here. I think it may provide interesting discussion and will hopefully shortcut further digressions down nonsensical paths.

I believe DOC is attempting to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because

1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was a church going christian
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) Athiesm can't rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian
8.) Christ and Paul are on some guys list of 100 most influential people.

The validity of any of these claims are not important to him. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for.

It is with the belief that by presenting enough small facts, these will add up to a large fact. This is obviously an example of either argumentum verbosium or fallacy of the consequent. But I would like for DOC to have a chance to prove me wrong.

Doc, why are these small "facts" relavent?
to what are they relavent?
and why I am wrong?

If they weren't relevant why would you take the time to put up an unusual thread about them. This thread's very existence adds weight to their relevancy. You should take some time and really think about that for awhile.

 

[joobz]

DOC believes that even though the greatest charitable givers were atheists (e.g., Warren Buffett, Bill Gates), thier works will be evil because they are atheist.

Nowhere does Warren Buffet or Bill Gates admit to being atheists. They admit they are agnostic and you know this because we've already talked about this.

And nowhere did I say what you say I believe.

Nope they are atheists in terms of the point that was being made. Your claim was that nothing done with out god can be good. Being agnostics, they do not do anything with god in thier hearts, but they are the great philathropists. Your point is wrong.


Note this is merely an example of you stretching context to score a semantic point.

 

[joobz]

No, you and joobz are wrong. If I said God gave Elvis his talent because he was a Christian then joobz would have been right. I said "maybe". You need to be accurate when criticising someone. Scientists shouldn't cut corners on accuracy. Didn't joobz say he did science research.

Example # 2 of DOC using semantic loopholes to avoid error.

DOC, which sentence would you say is a literal lie or a lie by implication?
1.)DOC's mom has sex with goats.
2.)Maybe DOC's mom has sex with goats.

 

[DOC]

That isn't YOU defining life. That is YOU posting someone else's definition of life.

So I guess you want me to make up my own definitions about scientific terms. Joobz sometimes you just have to admit you misspoke, and get it over with.

 

[JoeEllison]

If they weren't relevant why would you take the time to put up an unusual thread about them. This thread's very existence adds weight to their relevancy. You should take some time and really think about that for awhile.

Pointing out the stupidity and dishonesty of your position doesn't make your position any less stupid and dishonest. The idea that criticism of your foolish position adds weight to it is illogical and delusional.

 

[cyborg]

If they weren't relevant why would you take the time to put up an unusual thread about them. This thread's very existence adds weight to their relevancy. You should take some time and really think about that for awhile.

/thinks.

No.

 

[DOC]

Nope they are atheists in terms of the point that was being made.

Huh! Like I said, sometimes you just have to admit you were mistaken and get it over with. We all make mistakes.

 

[articulett]

Huh! Like I said, sometimes you just have to admit you were mistaken and get it over with. We all make mistakes.

Right. So which methods have you used to make sure you haven't done so?

 

[joobz]

So I guess you want me to make up my own definitions about scientific terms. Joobz sometimes you just have to admit you misspoke, and get it over with.

Nope. You simply refused to define a term and I called you on it. Like I said, If you can't phrase it into your own words, YOU do not understand it.

For instance, by the definition you gave, God wouldn't be considered alive.

Now, DOC, Sometimes you just have to admit your wrong and get over it.

 

[articulett]

Huh! Like I said, sometimes you just have to admit you were mistaken and get it over with. We all make mistakes.

Right. So which methods have you used to make sure you haven't done so?

 

[articulett]

Huh! Like I said, sometimes you just have to admit you were mistaken and get it over with. We all make mistakes.

Right. So which methods have you used to make sure you haven't done so?

 

[paximperium]

If they weren't relevant why would you take the time to put up an unusual thread about them. This thread's very existence adds weight to their relevancy. You should take some time and really think about that for awhile.

Hahahahahaha...so by YOU constantly bringing up Evolution and Atheism, that adds weight to its relevancy? You fail at logic bucko.

 

[articulett]

Huh! Like I said, sometimes you just have to admit you were mistaken and get it over with. We all make mistakes.

Right. So which methods have you used to make sure you haven't done so?